Category: Blogs

In the digital age, ensuring that technology serves everyone equitably is not just a noble goal—it’s a legal requirement for federal agencies. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act mandates that all electronic and information technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal agencies must be accessible to people with disabilities. This law aims to eliminate barriers in information technology, opening new avenues for people with disabilities to obtain information and engage with their government.

Recent developments signal a pivotal shift in how federal agencies approach Section 508 compliance. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in collaboration with the General Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Access Board, unveiled a landmark guidance in December, detailed in OMB Memo M-24-08. This guidance is not merely an update; it’s a clarion call for a more inclusive digital government.

The memo outlines enhanced expectations and accountability, urging agencies to place accessibility at the heart of digital governance. Among the pivotal components of the new guidance are:

• Leadership and Accountability: Agencies are now required to appoint a dedicated program manager to spearhead and monitor digital accessibility efforts.
• Expert Involvement: The integration of accessibility subject matter experts into the acquisition process ensures that new Information and Communications Technology (ICT) adheres to accessibility standards from the outset.
• User-Centric Design: Including individuals with disabilities in user groups for digital product design and testing enriches the user experience for everyone.
• Proactive Compliance: Agencies must regularly scan and monitor web content for accessibility, promptly addressing any deficiencies.
• Ongoing Education: The mandate for regular training on Section 508 and digital accessibility aims to foster a culture of inclusivity.

These enhancements come in response to mixed results in 508 compliance across agencies. A February 2023 report by the Department of Justice and GSA underscored the need for additional support and resources, reflecting on insights from a comprehensive 2012 survey.

“Accessibility must be incorporated, unless an exception applies, from the very beginning of the design and development of any digital experience and integrated throughout every step of the ICT lifecycle, including qualitative and inclusive research, feature prioritization, testing, deployment, enhancements, and maintenance activities,” the memo states. (Exceptions are detailed in the Standards under E202 General Exceptions.)

A Future of Inclusive Digital Services

Anticipating the road ahead, the GSA and the Access Board are finalizing a government-wide Section 508 assessment for 2024. This effort, expected to roll out in phases from spring to fall, aims to gather detailed insights into agency practices and challenges. Kristin Smith-O’Connor of the GSA shared with ExecutiveGov, “We are refining and honing our approach, ensuring that the upcoming changes, while not drastic, will significantly contribute to our collective goal of a fully accessible federal digital landscape.”

Agencies are encouraged to lean on the resources available on Section508.gov. This platform strives to be a comprehensive resource, offering guidance, best practices, and compliance testing tools. Additionally, the OMB memo directs the GSA and the Access Board to broaden Section 508 certification and training opportunities, enhancing the capabilities of federal employees to champion digital accessibility.

Enhancing Accessibility Now and in the Future

When navigating the complexities of Section 508 compliance, consider rigorous testing using tools like WAVE, Axe, and Lighthouse to identify and rectify common accessibility issues. However, recognizing the limitations of automated tools, consider augmenting them with manual evaluations, including keyboard navigation and screen reader compatibility tests. The combination of these efforts are guided by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring your services remain aligned with legal requirements and best practices.

Yet, the journey towards universal accessibility is ongoing. Despite significant strides, the path forward requires continuous effort, innovation, and collaboration. We celebrate the government’s initiative to demystify Section 508 compliance, and we remain hopeful for more actionable guidance to emerge, fostering an environment where digital accessibility is not just a compliance requirement but a cornerstone of public service.

Barry Lawrence is a Senior Communication Program Manager for Highlight. The opinions expressed in this blog are his own and reflect a commitment to fostering a more accessible digital world for all Americans.

Progress relies on bold organizations pushing boundaries with pioneering inventions redefining entire paradigms. But charting new frontiers carries immense risks, demanding exceptional discernment balancing long-term strategic necessity against short-term fiscal realities. Let’s take a deeper look at this problem through our cost and capability matrix, looking at our final quadrant. 

Did you miss the rest of the series?

Part 1 Intro to the Cost Capability Matrix
Part 2 | Assessing the Cost-Capability Tradeoff, Quadrant 1 – Consumables
Part 3 | Navigating the Cutting Edge: Investing in Specialized Innovation, Quadrant 2 – White Elephants
Part 4 | Calibrating Capabilities and Costs for Widespread Adoption, Quadrant 3 – High Value

Insights into High-Demand/Low-Density Workhorses  

Quadrant 4 contains complex customized solutions with enormous price tags and broad flexibility catering to a niche, specific application with a wide range of diverse capabilities. These genesis innovations pioneer entirely new concepts while custom-built offerings address unique constraints through specialized tailoring. Think Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, VR headsets in their infancy before standardized designs, self-driving vehicles under current R&D lacking widespread production, or conceptual Mars colonization capabilities. 

The audiences drawn to Quadrant 4 accept significant expense and uncertainty in exchange for unprecedented capabilities mapping uncharted territory. By nature, the limited scale of these innovations prevents cost efficiencies and flexibility of eventual commoditized alternatives. But the tradeoff offers opportunities to pursue mind-bending breakthroughs unencumbered by commercial viability constraints – for those strategists with patience and fortitude to endure. 

For leaders balancing pragmatic investments against exploring uncharted frontiers, three guidelines apply when engaging emerging innovations well before their benefits trickle down:   

• Anchor on Aligned Vision 
  Scattered moonshots waste resources. Prioritize game-changing innovations aligning to strategic roadmaps and unique constraint drivers before appraising exotic alternatives. 

• Embrace Iterative Agility 
  Rigorous yet nimble road mapping reduces the risks of backing dated designs. Modular architectures, iterative testing, and flexible requirements sustain competitiveness through ongoing evolution. 
• Forge Tight Feedback Loops   
  User-centric co-design and close developer collaboration maximize real-world value and application. Rapid concept testing surfaces must have use cases earlier.   

Make no mistake: the vast majority of cutting-edge inventions never progress beyond this high-risk, high-cost quadrant. However, for select innovations promising unprecedented paradigms aligned to institutional ambitions, the immense initial expenses and semi-narrow flexibility prove acceptable tradeoffs. With patient, disciplined strategies balancing focused innovation investments against quick-win solutions, leaders can judiciously support pioneering development while ensuring affordable access to new capabilities at the opportune moment. 

Of course, what constitutes an acceptable tradeoff depends heavily on the observer. While pragmatic key stakeholders naturally orient toward proven capabilities and fiscal prudence, visionary strategists think bigger – prioritizing long-term possibilities over short-term savings. Both mindsets have merits. The key lies in analyzing decisions through multiple lenses, accounting for all perspectives – including the end vision, interim milestones, and must-have capabilities that ultimately determine what constitutes value. 

Practical Application  

Analyzing pioneering innovations in an organization’s portfolio through the lens of Quadrant 4 reveals just how many exploratory moonshots fail to materialize capabilities or strategic outcomes warranting prolonged investment at scale. This grounding assessment highlights expensive genesis projects and custom builds outpacing actual user needs or lagging in real-world viability. Plotting existing bleeding-edge initiatives on the matrix provides perspective on which demand vision over validation, enabling recalibration around innovations demonstrating clearer progression from novelty towards necessity. Leaders can periodically evaluate Quadrant 4 investments against strategic alignment, opportunity costs, and upside optionality relative to risk to determine if pressing forward or pivoting resources makes sense given competing priorities. 

Questions a leader should consider: 

• How clearly do our pioneering innovation investments map to long-range strategic vision, priorities, and constraint scenarios vs isolated speculative curiosity?  
• Have we established rigorous stage gate criteria assessing when to continue or sunset high-risk exploratory initiatives based on demonstrated applicability? 
• What level of recurring costs over what time horizon requires validating success for various genres of bleeding-edge innovation moonshots we pursue? 
• Where can we employ rapid prototyping and user co-creation to accelerate insights on utility earlier before overinvesting in custom innovations lacking validated market fit?   
• To what extent do our custom innovation architectures allow for modular refresh, interoperability, and future adaptation, minimizing sunk costs as paradigms shift? 
• Which lower-risk existing alternatives or incremental improvements could partially fulfill niche needs in the interim before specialized quadrant 4 capabilities mature?  
• At what thresholds of stretching accuracy in long-term future forecasting should leaders demand evidence of clearer market signaling before allocating resources to extremely customized boutique solutions? 

Asking these challenging questions introduces essential rigor, milestones, priority balancing, and runway debates regarding high-cost innovations far removed from practical payoffs. This helps avoid inertia where investments balloon absent defensible strategies for affordability, adoption, and scaling. 

With honest appraisals and robust discourse, wise leaders deliberately choose innovation investments spanning maturity horizons aligned to multi-step strategic roadmaps. Mature capabilities tackle present constraints using economical, commoditized solutions. Advancing innovations address emerging opportunities primed for customizable, scalable adoption. Pioneering moonshots map future frontiers stretched beyond today’s imagination. By intentionally anchoring innovation across time horizons, leaders compound capabilities, shaping tomorrow while mastering today. In the final part of this six-part series, we’ll look at turning the theory into practice by applying the cost-capability matrix in our final part.

Innovations inevitably transition from bleeding-edge exclusivity to mass-market commodities as improved manufacturing and competition drive down costs. Savvy leaders understand where highly valued capabilities currently sit on this spectrum, ensuring investments target accessible innovations with favorable risk-reward ratios primed for scalable adoption. Let’s take a deeper look at understanding where these innovations fit into the cost vs capability matrix, focusing on quadrant 3. 

Did you miss the rest of the series?

Part 1 Intro to the Cost Capability Matrix
Part 2 | Assessing the Cost-Capability Tradeoff, Quadrant 1 – Consumables
Part 3 | Navigating the Cutting Edge: Investing in Specialized Innovation, Quadrant 2 – White Elephants

Insights into High Value   

Quadrant 3 represents the commercial sweet spot spanning novel yet increasingly standardized capabilities with expanding mainstream utility. For budget-conscious leaders seeking maximum capability per dollar spent, Quadrant 3 offers optimal bang for the buck – modernized solutions squeezing every bit of value from investments by bridging customizability and economies of scale. 

Whether pursuing technology upgrades or new solution procurement, targeting innovations sliding down adoption curves unlocks the best of both worlds – substantial capability advancement at palatable price points minimized through commodification. Building in customizability broadens the applicability of the system to wider use cases to extract full utility from existing investments. 

Moreover, commoditizing innovations through flexibility and customization provides organizational agility to tailor solutions perfectly with specific requirements. The savings accrued from maximizing adoption lifetime value frees up funds for additional capability enhancements or innovation investments in the future – and creates dynamic advancement built on firm fiscal foundations.  

By proactively targeting solutions transitioning from early niche audiences to mainstream viability, leaders avoid overspending on exotic innovations while sidestepping stagnant antiquation. Instead, real material progress emerges as prudent investments harness commodification’s compounding savings and flexibility dividends to scale organizational capabilities over time systematically. 

The key insight for leaders lies in evaluating emergent capabilities by the trajectory and velocity of their value rather than technical specifications alone. Prioritizing innovations reaching the knee of hockey stick adoption curves allows tapping into explosive demand built on proven multi-context utility. 

With appetites for sophisticated new functionalities balanced against moderate risk tolerances, early adopters validate solutions demonstrating burgeoning market viability. Take smartphones transitioning from luxury to essential, streaming proliferating beyond early niche followers, and solar energy expanding from eco-enthusiasts to cost-conscious households. In each case, engineering and positioning transformed exotic innovations into flexible mass-market commodities traded on improving price-performance ratios.   

Practical Application  

Plotting existing capabilities against Quadrant 3 allows leaders to identify emerging innovations ripe for adoption and scale. Analyzing through this lens highlights solutions fit for flexible customization, standardization, and volume deployment – prime targets for maximizing capability bang for the buck. Leaders can assess innovation velocity, utility trajectory, and price elasticity to prioritize commoditizing opportunities on the cusp of explosive hockey stick growth. Comparing organizational solutions against market alternatives re-emphasizes gaps in Anchoring innovation investments to this high-value nexus and fuels aggressive capability advancement at minimizing price points before niche innovations become exclusionary. 

Questions a leader should consider: 

• Which emerging innovations demonstrate a clear trajectory towards commoditization that we should evaluate for adoption and scaling? 
• How could we enhance flexibility, configurability, and customizability in our existing solutions to improve applicability across diverse use cases?  
• Where do opportunities exist to consolidate contracts around standardized capabilities with multiple vendors to improve purchasing power? 
• How can we leverage volume licensing, bulk pricing, or other economies of scale to reduce costs further as we broaden the deployment of valuable capabilities? 
• Do our software development, testing, and release cycles allow rapid integration feedback and new features prioritizing user needs as capabilities commoditize?   
• How frequently are we testing the market for replacement solutions as existing ones transition from differentiation to commoditization? 
• What risks of disruption do we face if failing to adopt new high-value commodity solutions prior to reaching the scale ceiling with current ones? 
• Across stakeholders benefiting from common, scalable capabilities, are governance and funding properly aligned to share responsibility and cost savings? 

Proactively asking these questions focuses technology investments on the dynamic high-value center of the market. This prevents leaving money on the table during invaluable windows when tailored adoption at scale is possible before niches become exclusionary or obsolete. 

Rather than chase exotic innovations or settle for antiquation, alignment to Quadrant 3’s mix of customizability and enlarging scale offers attractive middle paths for optimizing capability growth. Leaders realize the best of both worlds – substantial capability advancement at minimizing price points via commodification – for aggressively taking advantage of emerging opportunities. Next, we’ll examine our last quadrant, High Demand/Low-Density Workhorses. 

 

Progress demands pushing boundaries with pioneering innovations to redefine what’s possible. But not every bleeding-edge capability warrants immediate investment. At least not before evaluating the cost and performance viability for widespread adoption. Still, certain specialized use cases justify the premiums commanded by exclusive emerging technologies. We’re exploring each quadrant in the cost and capability matrix. Let’s take a deeper look into quadrant 2. 

Did you miss the rest of the series?

Part 1 Intro to the Cost Capability Matrix
Part 2 | Assessing the Cost-Capability Tradeoff, Quadrant 1 – Consumables

Insights into White Elephants 

Quadrant 2 contains these complex customized solutions with astronomical price tags and limited flexibility catering to niche, specific applications. These systems occupy critical spaces demanding extensive tailoring, exotic components, and top-tier performance. Think about microprocessors powering high-performance computing, highly customized cybersecurity defenses fortifying infrastructure, or proprietary aerospace and defense technologies securing strategic capabilities.  

The innovators and early adopters drawn to these offerings willingly trade off higher expenses and rigid designs for unmatched capabilities meeting unique constraints. By nature, the limited scale of these specialized innovations prevents cost efficiencies and flexibility afforded more commoditized mainstream solutions. But the flipside offers opportunities to pursue mind-bending breakthroughs in materials, processes, and performance unencumbered by commercial viability constraints. 

Practical Application  

Navigating this rarefied innovation airspace dominated by high-risk technological frontiers and uncertainty requires savvy leadership. Three essential guiding principles apply when engaging and evaluating with cutting-edge solutions before their benefits trickle down to wider audiences: 

• Laser Focus on Critical Priorities: Not every nice-to-have capability warrants riding the bleeding edge, given the big bills and decision paralysis. Leaders must ground innovation priorities in strategic necessity and unique organizational requirements before pursuing exotic alternatives.  

• Embrace Iterative Agility: Rigorous yet nimble road mapping reduces risks of backing ultimately outdated designs. Prioritize modular architectures, iterative testing and flexible requirements that sustain competitiveness through ongoing evolution vs wholesale rip-and-replace upgrades.   

• Forge Tight Feedback Loops: User-centric co-design and collaboration with developers is essential to maximize bespoke solutions’ real-world value and application. Rapid user testing surfaces vital insights on utility while targeting must-have use cases.   

Plotting an organization’s existing specialized innovations on the cost-capability matrix reveals how many complex custom solutions fail to demonstrate strategic alignment or strong value realization compared to more mainstream commodities. By analyzing the niche innovations portfolio through the lens of Quadrant 2, leaders gain sobering visibility into expensive, over-designed systems bordering on extravagance more than necessity. This introspection highlights opportunities to scale back custom projects losing steam to prioritize resources for capabilities demonstrating clearer enterprise payoffs. Taking an inventory of specialized innovations against the matrix provides a much-needed perspective on the sustainability and strategic importance of boutique bills threatening to breach acceptable risk thresholds. 

 Questions a leader should consider: 

• Do our organization’s specialized niche innovations directly address clearly defined strategic priorities and constraints, or are they more speculative “nice-to-haves”? 
• Have the custom solutions reliably demonstrated sufficient real-world performance improvements over mainstream alternatives to justify 2-3x costs? 
• What level of adoption and utilization have our bespoke innovations seen since deployment? How might we improve outcomes? 
• Can any modular components be extracted from existing niche innovations for reuse in other solutions pursuing standardization and scale? 
• Would pursuit of more open, flexible architectures reduce switching costs and allow our specialized capabilities to remain competitively refreshed? 
• Can we meaningfully forecast total lifetime costs for supporting, upgrading, and maintaining highly customized innovations with unpredictable change over time? 
• At what threshold of expense, delayed delivery, requirements creep, or opportunity costs should we reevaluate continuing investment in specialized niches vs pivoting resources to higher-value activities?   
• Beyond narrow niches, do we have mature processes for responsibly mainstreaming or sunsetting specialized innovations if use cases evolve or fail to materialize? 

Asking these difficult questions allows leaders to critically examine custom innovations to ensure investments stay strategically aligned and deliver tenable value to the organization’s needs. Ongoing scrutiny combats inertia or emotional attachments that cause niche solutions to bloat budgets. 

Specialized innovation occupies a crucial yet often misunderstood niche, balancing present constraints against future ambitions. Though exotic and expensive, the apex solutions produced by unrelenting builder-user focus make the high costs and narrow flexibility worthwhile for the few organizations requiring their unmatched benefits. With disciplined strategies balancing investments in bespoke innovations against commoditized alternatives, leaders can judiciously support pioneering development while ensuring affordable access to new capabilities at the opportune moment for their unique needs. In the next article, we’ll look into the ideal space, high value, where we have low cost and high capability. 

Decision-makers face tough cost-capability dilemmas whenever charting strategic plans or evaluating investments. Whether debating budget allocations, analyzing procurement choices, or guiding technology adoption, leaders constantly balance fiscal prudence against pursuing advanced functionalities.

Did you miss part 1 of this series?

Read it here: Part 1 Intro to the Cost Capability Matrix

On one hand, sticking to bare essentials and proven offerings seems safest given constraints around taxpayer dollars, shareholder responsibilities or operating budgets. However, declining to invest in cutting-edge innovations risks ceding strategic advantages to those embracing new paradigms and capabilities. Such tradeoff analyses typically rely more on subjectivity than objectivity. 

In decision-making processes, the challenge lies in balancing value and outcomes while avoiding excessive complexity, expenditure, or stretching beyond means. It is common for organizations to mistakenly associate affordability with a lack of progress or compromise in performance. However, not every investment requires cutting-edge capabilities. Mature solutions, adapted for scalability, can address immediate challenges while freeing up resources for high-risk, high-reward endeavors in the future. 

 

Insights into Consumables 

Quadrant 1 of the cost-capability matrix focuses on “consumables” – innovations optimized to deliver essential, affordable value rather than peak performance. These solutions cater to the pragmatic majority who prioritize price and necessity over prestige. Examples include reliable procurement vehicles, efficient mobile banking apps, and simple social platforms. This approach reflects a return to basics. 

What distinguishes consumables is their emphasis on scalability and simplicity rather than specifications and customization. By maximizing production volume and streamlining features, consumables achieve low per unit costs, making them accessible to the mass market. Although they may not be attention-grabbing, consumables’ stripped-down approach and efficient operations fulfill their purpose: providing foundational capabilities to the mainstream at the lowest viable price point. 

However, the notion of compromise is gradually losing relevance even in the low-cost consumables market. A new wave of ambitious startups now integrates surprisingly robust features into everyday products that were previously limited to meeting essential needs. For instance, robot vacuum cleaners now incorporate clever lidar sensors, budget smartphones run capable machine learning algorithms, and affordable headsets offer remarkably immersive virtual reality experiences. The line between premium and budget offerings is becoming increasingly blurry. 

This democratization of once high-end technology to mass market consumables presents tremendous opportunities, but it also raises the level of competition. Both established industry leaders and disruptive newcomers realize that a significant portion of their potential market seeks to fulfill basic requirements at affordable prices. By catering to this segment, they gain early access to customers in the adoption lifecycle, cultivating loyalty and increasing lifetime value. 

Therefore, consumables deserve just as much innovation, iteration, and investment as their more sophisticated counterparts. Proper positioning of consumables requires insight and vision, as the capabilities they offer become the baselines that end users come to expect as standard. Underestimating this segment by equating affordability with a lack of progress risks losing significant portions of the market to new entrants that provide unexpected value at disruptively low prices. 

Practical Application  

Leaders can harness Quadrant 1’s lens to identify capability gaps in existing consumable solutions aligned to basic organizational needs. Plotting current offerings on the cost-capability matrix quickly reveals commoditized areas demanding new attention amidst accelerating innovation cycles. Legacy systems residing in once-stable basic necessity niches now face disruption by scrappy entrants bundling advanced functionalities at radically low-price points. By analyzing the organizational consumables portfolio through the matrix, leaders gain urgency to re-examine lagging solutions against modern marketplace alternatives and user expectations in order to recapture neglected value chains before disruptors dominate commodity spaces ceded due to dated assumptions. 

Questions a leader should consider: 

• Are the basic, commoditized solutions in our organization still delivering the affordable value the Consumables quadrant seeks? Or could they be improved to better align with end-user needs and modern alternatives? 
• What lower-cost stripped-down options available in the marketplace could offer similar base capabilities to replace any costly legacy consumables in our portfolio? 
• How can we leverage economies of scale for these essential capabilities by consolidating contracts/vendors, increasing standardization, or improving production throughput? 
• What underlying technologies, integrations, or processes could we enhance in our consumables to keep pace with competitors bundling advanced features into low-cost offerings? 
• Do we have sufficient bench strength, partnerships, or in-house expertise across the organization’s various consumables to respond quickly if disrupted by cheaper or higher-value replacements? 
• How frequently are we refreshing requirements and exploring alternative consumables relative to the pace of innovation in a given capability area? Are user needs and solution assumptions still aligned? 
• What change management investments – organizational process changes, training, etc. – would be necessary if pivoting to faster cycle times and upgrades for our essential commodity solutions? 
• Are capabilities in any supporting consumables limiting the potential usefulness or adoption ceiling of more advanced solutions my organization offers?  

Asking these tough questions allows leaders to proactively address potential capability gaps, disruption risks, slower upgrade cycles, and feature creep even in basic consumable building blocks many institutions take for granted. 

In the race to capture emerging value chains, the gloves are clearly off when it comes to consumables. Forget glossy packaging or prestige pricing – the goods hiding in plain sight often end up underpinning household brands. Behind the modest exterior lie immense possibilities for those clever enough to unlock consumables’ full potential. We’ll continue our analysis of each quadrant, looking into Quadrant 2: White Elephants next.  

Have you ever presented an idea to leadership for them to say it’s too expensive? In a capitalist society, it makes sense; after all, organizational dollars are precious and essential. In the public sector, it makes sense as government officials act as stewards of taxpayer dollars. But looking at the cost alone is a pitfall. I can recall numerous pitches where the decision maker’s perception was focused solely on the price tag being too high. What if we help innovative idea generators show the relationship between cost and impact? What if we helped the organizational culture transform to ask questions like, what will the impact be? If the short-term investment improves both the long-term strategy and budget, shouldn’t we at least hear them out?

So how do we show the cost and impact? Let’s look at the cost and capability matrix. On the y-axis, Cost represents the total lifecycle cost per individual unit. On the x-axis, Capability, can be measured in different ways depending on what you provide. For instance, the capability could be less diverse or more diverse. Like a simple Swiss Army knife on the less side compared to a robust Swiss Army knife with many tools on the more side.

Before we go down the rabbit hole of use cases, let’s talk about each quadrant and their relationship to common methodologies like Moore’s Adoption Curve^[1], Wardley Mapping^[2], or Disruption Risk Matrix^[3]. Why do these methodologies matter? Understanding the relationship between the matrix and these methodologies will help you understand the types of people or adopters you’re interacting with. They allow you to (1) understand the changes necessary to implement, (2) build your investment strategy, or (3) manage your existing portfolio of investments.

Quadrant 1, Consumables: Low Cost/Low Capability, represents low-cost, high-volume products and services focused on simply getting the job done. They lack customization but appeal to the pragmatic seeking affordable options to meet basic needs. This is akin to Efficient Commuter vehicles: Where affordability meets practicality, the compact car acting as daily workhorses for those focused on utility and stretching every dollar. On the innovation curve, these solutions cater to wide adoption once easily accessible and reliable; on a Wardley Map, they fill simple niches as a commodity but may face declining relevance over time.

In Quadrant 2, White Elephants: High Cost/Low Capability, hosts expensive and specialized solutions catering to limited but crucial applications; these innovations service high-priority needs for specialized adopters willing to tolerate higher costs and lower flexibility in exchange for tailored capabilities. This quadrant is akin to Bespoke Marvel vehicles: Crafted with meticulous attention, these high-cost marvels redefine automotive sophistication, appealing to those who appreciate the extraordinary. Though broader mainstream adoption may be unlikely, these innovations occupy critical niches, providing highly designed systems for use cases demanding extensively customized or state-of-the-art functionalities appropriate for particular vanguard early adopters.

Moving along the bottom, Quadrant 3, High Value: Low Cost/High Capability, contains flexible, customizable solutions catering to early adopters craving new capabilities; these commoditized products provide mass-market options at affordable levels for the moderately risk-tolerant majority. This quadrant resembles “Innovations for All”: High-Value vehicles bring advanced features within reach, catering to those eager for cutting-edge capabilities without breaking the bank. On the innovation curve, early adopters flock to these innovative offerings as their prices become accessible.

Finally, Quadrant 4, High demand/low-density Workhorses: High Cost/High Capability, provides specialized, customized solutions for those willing to tolerate high costs and risks for advanced capabilities tailored to their needs; though expensive due to few units and economies of scope, these custom-built innovations cater to unaddressed niches. This quadrant is akin to Trailblazing Titans: High-density workhorses, where high costs fuel groundbreaking innovations. On the innovation curve, risk-taking innovators fuel this high-risk, high-reward quadrant focused on groundbreaking inventions, while on a Wardley map, the emphasis is genesis and custom solutions stretching capabilities beyond current commoditized offers.

From budget constraints to battlefield decisions, striking the right balance between cost and capability is a constant challenge for leaders across government, military, and business spheres. We’ve overviewed how this framework offers leaders advanced tradeoff analysis. By mapping solutions against the matrix, organizations gain critical visibility into portfolios spanning maturity levels, adoption risks, capability outcomes, and adjacent possibilities – profoundly empowering objective, data-driven choices optimizing limited resources. Now we turn to explore each quadrant in greater depth, starting with the mature, economical offerings in Quadrant 1: highlighting real-world applications of the matrix for navigating constant tensions between costs, performance, and strategic alignment. When applied with rigor and vision, this model acts as a true compass guiding organizations to compound capabilities and savings over time.

---

[1] Geoffrey Moore’s Innovation Adoption Curve categorizes the process of new product or technology adoption into five segments: Innovators (2.5%), Early Adopters (13.5%), Early Majority(34%), Late Majority (34%), and Laggards (16%). This model assists businesses in understanding the market dynamics and adapting strategies for each segment, emphasizing the challenge of crossing the “chasm” between early adopters and the early majority. Learn more here: https://a.co/d/1GcipFh

[2] Imagine a map of innovation where capabilities evolve like landscapes. Wardley Mapping charts their progress, from basic needs (consumables) to groundbreaking concepts (genesys), helping leaders navigate complex environments, prioritize investments, and fuel future growth. Learn more here: https://medium.com/wardleymaps/on-being-lost-2ef5f05eb1ec

[3] A disruption risk matrix maps potential threats based on their impact and likelihood. High-impact, high-probability disruptors demand immediate attention, driving proactive strategies and shaping future-proof business plans. This dynamic tool helps navigate volatility and stay ahead of the curve. Think of it like a two-axis chart:

• Axis 1: Disruption Impact: This measures the potential severity of the disruption. High impact disruptions could completely upend your business model, while low impact ones might only cause temporary hiccups.
• Axis 2: Disruption Likelihood: This gauges the probability of the disruption actually happening. High-likelihood threats demand immediate attention, while low-likelihood ones might be monitored but not prioritized.

Have you ever sat down with a SME and asked them if a technology or technique was the right one, and their response was “it depends” and then follow it up with, “what’s the problem you’re trying to solve?” SMEs make these statements and ask these questions because their experience has taught them that the context and specifics of the problem you are trying to solve will illuminate whether the technology or technique is appropriate. Over the past six months, I’ve seen a rise in conversations regarding Digital Engineering (DE)* and Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)* across different applications from a weapon system, aircraft, facility, business, capability, or others. Considering these conversations, I wondered if the “Plug-and-Play (PnP)” mindset is still the right approach? Well, “it depends”. Couple these conversations with the ever-churning gears of technological advancement, which are continuously evolving, and—in my opinion—the PnP mindset approach is too broad and non-specific. To thrive in this dynamic landscape, organizations should consider other mature approaches in addition to the PnP mindset and embrace the DE and MOSA paradigms.

What are the advantages of the PnP mindset for specific use cases:

• Rapid Deployment Situations: When organizations need immediate out-of-the-box functionality without extensive setup, PnP enables users to swap components quickly.
• Limited Integration Needs: For standalone systems not needing larger ecosystem integration, PnP provides straightforward solutions.
• Systems Requiring Infrequent Upgrades: Where technology refresh cycles are longer, PnP’s simplicity can be more suitable than MOSA’s continual flexibility.

However, there are some pitfalls within the PnP mindset. While seemingly convenient, PnP poses distinct challenges:

• Vendor Lock: Proprietary integrations and data silos bind businesses to specific vendors, stifling flexibility and innovation.
• Innovation Bottlenecks: Reliance on specific vendors restricts access to cutting-edge solutions and hinders internal development.
• Fragmented Systems: Lack of interoperability creates data silos and hampers collaboration across and within organizations.

Of course, PnP helped us get to where we are today. However, to move to the next level, leveraging an open approach with standards will help us improve our ability to morph and adopt new technologies. Coupled with the ability to visualize and experiment with digital twins under the umbrella of DE, it enhances our ability to increase our understanding and explore alternative courses of action through what-if scenario analysis. Extending our ability to strategize and model out different scenarios in a digital environment increases our ability to innovate and identify gaps in our current capabilities, people, policies, process, partners, and platforms. To address what might be possible, let’s look at MOSA and DE:

Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA): MOSA liberates organizations from these constraints by advocating for:

• Open Standards and Interfaces: These enable seamless integration of best-of-breed solutions from diverse vendors, fostering a dynamic technology ecosystem.
• Modular Architecture: Systems are built with independent, interchangeable modules, empowering businesses to adapt and innovate without major overhauls.
• Innovation as a Core Principle: Openness fosters collaboration and experimentation, allowing businesses to readily leverage the latest advancements.

Real World Examples of Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA):

F35: The F35, also known as the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, applies the MOSA throughout the aircraft and across its lifecycle, setting the standard for openness and flexibility to adapt the weapon system to meet evolving operational mission needs1.

Virginia Class Submarines: The Virginia Class Submarines use a Modular Isolated Deck Structure (MIDS) and open-system architecture, resulting in a significantly lower cost, yet more effective command and control structure for fire control, navigation, electronic warfare, and communications connectivity2.

JADC2 (Joint All-Domain Command and Control): JADC2 demands a modular open-system approach (MOSA) that keeps up with evolving threats. Modular approaches and flexible, open-system architectures allow system components to evolve in response to changing technologies, threats, and interoperability needs3.

Digital Engineering (DE): DE complements MOSA’s foundation by introducing a data-driven and integrated approach to:

• Early Integration and Modeling: Digital twins and virtual simulations allow for early testing and optimization of systems before physical implementation, reducing risks and improving efficiency.
• Continuous Integration and Delivery (CI/CD): Automated testing and deployment pipelines accelerate development cycles and ensure rapid delivery of high-quality software.
• Data-Driven Insights and Decision-making: Real-time data analysis from sensors and systems fuels informed decision-making and continuous improvement.
• Improved Lifecycle Management: Data-driven insights allow for predictive maintenance, which helps maximize each taxpayer dollar spent across the design-build-sustain lifecycle phases of platforms.

Real World Examples of Digital Engineering (DE):

Boeing 787: The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the world’s first e-enabled commercial airplane, combines the power of integrated information and communications systems to drive operational efficiency, enhance revenue, and streamline airplane maintenance4. Also, Boeing used crowdsourcing in designing the 787, which is a form of digital engineering5.

Ford Mustang Mach-E: The creation of Ford Model e was informed by the success of small, mission-driven Ford teams that developed the Ford GT, Mustang Mach-E SUV and F-150 Lightning pickup as well as Ford’s dedicated EV division in China6. The Mustang Mach-E runs the software through a vertically mounted 15.5-inch touchscreen that allows for easy access to the system’s array of apps and features7.

NASA’s Artemis Program: The Orion spacecraft, a part of NASA’s Artemis missions, uses a model-based system engineering (MBSE) SysML modeling approach which provides a greatly enhanced access to information in addition to simulation / digital twin capabilities for real-time flight operations support8.

The MOSA & DE Powerhouse:

What might a combined MOSA & DE approach look like? Imagine MOSA and DE working in tandem to revolutionize your technology stack:

• SaaS and Cloud: MOSA enables a hybrid cloud approach with seamless data exchange, while DE’s CI/CD pipelines streamline cloud deployments and updates.
• Cybersecurity: MOSA’s open APIs facilitate integration of diverse security tools, while DE’s proactive modeling and simulation enables predictive threat detection and mitigation.
• Data & Analytics: MOSA’s open platforms integrate diverse data sources and analytics tools, while DE’s data-driven approach ensures insights guide efficient decision-making.
• Internet of Things (IoT): MOSA’s standardized interfaces ensure smooth data flow between sensors, devices, and applications, while DE’s digital twins optimize performance and maintenance of interconnected systems.
• Human-Centered Design: MOSA’s flexibility enables user-centric interfaces, while DE’s iterative design process incorporates user feedback throughout development, ensuring technology serves human needs.

Embracing MOSA and DE isn’t just about technology; it’s about a holistic transformation fueled by people, policies, processes, partners, and platforms. Here’s how to ignite this change:

• People: Foster an innovation culture with cross-functional teams empowered by openness and data-driven decisions.
• Policies: Develop agile rules incentivizing experimentation and early integration to pave the way for MOSA and DE.
• Processes: Implement CI/CD pipelines and agile workflows embracing iterative development for continuous delivery of value.
• Partners: Strategically partner with MOSA and DE leaders to accelerate expertise-building and adoption.
• Platforms: Invest in open and adaptable platforms that future-proof systems by seamlessly integrating new solutions.

When problem solving, finding the right approach is often responded with “it depends.” Considering the possibilities of MOSA and/or DE provides more options to solve complex problems. These potent paradigms unlock a future-proof technology landscape, one that bends to change with adaptive ease, scales effortlessly to meet new demands, and constantly thrives on innovation. Through open standards, modularity, and data-driven insights, collaboration and experimentation become the engines of progress. And most importantly, humans remain at the heart of it all, empowered by technology designed to serve, not dictate. This is not just a future of technological prowess, but a future of human-centric possibility, where organizations and people flourish together. So, step beyond the PnP mindset and unleash the boundless potential that awaits by embracing MOSA and Digital Engineering.

---

*Definitions:

Digital Engineering Definition: An integrated digital approach that uses authoritative sources of systems’ data and models as a continuum across disciplines to support lifecycle activities from concept through disposal.

Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) Definition: An integrated business and technical strategy to achieve competitive and affordable acquisition and sustainment over the system life cycle. In DoD systems, MOSA is an acquisition and design strategy, consisting of technical architectures, that adopt open standards and support a modular, loosely coupled, and highly cohesive system structure.

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

– George Bernard Shaw

The pace of technological change is faster than ever. We often talk about digital transformation when adopting new technologies, but the pace of change is so rapid it is better defined as a Digital Continuum. But how fast is technology changing, you might ask? As an example, this year, Matt Turck shared his 2023 MAD (Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence & Data) Landscape, and as he keenly pointed out, “This year, we have a total of 1,416 logos appearing on the landscape. For comparison, there were 139 [logos] in our first version in 2012.” That’s a little over 10x in 11 years. So, there are definitely some new technologies requiring organizations to continually upskill their workforces. Couple that fact with, “Today, about 50% of jobs need employees to have technology skills, but it’s estimated that by 2030, 75% will have such requirements. The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated the growth …”[1]

What can we do? As organizations navigate an era of exponential technological change, it requires building workforce capabilities that evolve as rapidly as the innovation itself. More than just adopting the latest tools, it means cultivating talent that can adapt to constant shifts and leverage technologies to drive competitive advantage. This degree of agility demands enterprise-wide digital literacy. We can begin by building digital literacy and embracing an adaptive mindset to thrive in the Digital Continuum. As leaders, we should aim towards establishing a digital literacy program that equips employees with the skills and mindset to effectively embrace new technologies. Helping them pivot from seeing technology as a black box or mystery and instead seeing it as a force multiplier and understanding its relevance.

Digital literacy empowers continuous learning – it is the killer app for organizational resilience along the Digital Continuum. At its core, digital literacy is less about mastering specific technical skills and more about fostering the mindsets and behaviors that enable rapid upskilling. How adept is your workforce at continuously adopting new solutions? How quickly can talent reskill when needs change? The answers depend largely on digital literacy.

Digital Literacy Competencies & Resources

At its core, digital literacy is about more than just technical skills. It’s about cultivating an agile workforce that can adapt to constant change. This means focusing not just on tools and platforms but on broader competencies like:

• Critical thinking to assess new information and trends
• Creativity and innovation to apply technology in novel ways
• Communication and collaboration skills to share knowledge
• Growth mindset to continuously upskill and evolve

Beyond competencies, it’s vital to foster the right culture. The “be comfortable being uncomfortable” ethos is key. Change brings discomfort, but discomfort breeds growth. As a leader today, right now, what can you do to start upskilling your team? You can help facilitate the use of resources like:

• Online training courses and microlearning on digital skills (e.g. open or paid online training like Code Academy, Flatiron School, Coursera, and Udacity)
• Access to experts via mentoring and coaching (e.g. within your organization, your network, LinkedIn, and others)
• Immersive workshops to experience emerging tech firsthand
• Job rotations to build cross-functional literacy
• Incentives for self-directed learning and upskilling (e.g. YouTube, Google, even LLMs like ChatGPT, Bard, Claude)

But more importantly, these approaches will promote continuous learning as a core value. Technology will keep transforming, so learning cannot stop. As Winston Churchill stated, “To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” Digital literacy programs should aim to develop a responsive workforce.

Without enterprise digital literacy, the Digital Continuum becomes harder to achieve. Lack of comfort with technology adoption can impede transformation initiatives while functional silos struggle to collaborate to implement innovations. By empowering people to skill, reskill, and upskill along the Digital Continuum, we can evolve into agile organizations equipped to leverage technology for competitive advantage. But it starts with building a culture obsessed with lifelong learning, not just tools. Organizations full of lifelong learners fully embrace the latest platforms and analytics to execute digital strategies. The Digital Continuum represents an endless opportunity to learn and grow. Let’s embrace it, be uncomfortable, and radically reskill together.

If you want help or support establishing your Digital Literacy program or strategy, contact James “Jim” Eselgroth.

---

[1] https://teamstage.io/technology-in-the-workplace-statistics/

We live in an era of rapid technological change that requires organizations to continually adapt and transform. Many leaders in the public and private sectors often find themselves having to address these technological changes. But how do we do it? Is it through a tech strategy or digital transformation? What should it look like? How do we ensure we don’t erode our culture or identity? And most importantly, Why? I want to share my first 60 days as Highlight’s technical executive leading Technology and Innovation. Of course, Highlight made the first tough decision for me by establishing our T&I office. As Mark Twain once said, “The secret of getting ahead is getting started.” [1]

These first 60 days were an extremely enlightening blur. During my time in the military, I learned early on that the first action when leading a new office or team is to talk to as many stakeholders as possible and sit back and observe for at least two months. Why? Because I don’t want to come in as “that guy” who makes changes without having a basic understanding of the current organizational dynamics related to the people, policies, processes, partners, or platforms.

A few years ago, when attending the Foundation for Chief Data Officers Course sponsored by MIT, I learned that as an executive, there are three factors essential for success:

• (1) the authority to execute,
• (2) a budget, and
• (3) resources (people).

Without having direct control over these three critical pieces, your success will be directly tied to whoever has control over one or more of the factors.

Planning for the Future

So, where did I begin? I drafted a plan paired with a clear authority to execute. We needed a Technical Strategy (the plan) and a charter (authority). Why is having these key documents important? I think Gen (Ret) Gordon R. Sullivan put it best in his book and the title, Hope is not a Method [2]. Essentially, effective planning fosters accountability by guiding our actions; as we can’t hope for the best, we need to plan for it. It enables us to strategically allocate our resources (including people, time, finances, information, and equipment) to maximize their impact on our objectives. Planning is the foundation for us to assess and evaluate our accomplishments with precision. Our strategy for the Highlight Technology and Innovation office outlines four pillars: Domain & Capability Management, Innovation, Vendor Partnerships, and Thought Leadership.

In addition to a plan, the other key element to adapting and transforming to new technology is understanding how it will effect the organization. When we talk about technology strategies and change, we’re talking about digital transformation. When executing the “Digital Transformation” process, we often consider the people, policies, processes, partners, and platforms. Why do we have people first? From my observations, for a few reasons:

• Most technology is designed to help people,
• People are often the largest enablers in the change process and
• Technologies almost always have an impact on how people work.

So, digital transformation isn’t just a process. It’s also a mindset.

“Don’t be fooled by some of the digital transformation buzz out there, digital transformation is a business discipline or company philosophy, not a project.” — Katherine Kostereva [3]

---

From Digital Transformation to Digital Continuum

Personally, as a mindset, the phrase “digital transformation” doesn’t cut it as it implies there’s a beginning, middle, and end, as though the transformation is somehow complete. This is a pitfall! Maybe a more appropriate terminology for people and organizations is to call it a Digital Continuum. After all, change is constant.

As a young airman, I recall a speech by Gen. John P. Jumper, now retired, where he emphasized the need to “be comfortable being uncomfortable” when it comes to change. This year, Gen. Charles Q. Brown, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed this sentiment. Their message has stayed with me: We must embrace the rapid changes and discomfort that come with adopting new technologies. Morphing technology necessitates adaptability. Here at Highlight our Digital Continuum begins with understanding where our own people are in their openness to change, to new technologies, and developing a Digital Literacy training plan.

When considering digital transformation, it’s essential to recognize the close relationship between a well-defined technology strategy and the continuous nature of this process. A clear strategy acts as the guiding compass in our digital journey. It ensures that our transformation efforts remain not only purposeful but also adaptable in the face of constant change. In the dynamic landscape of technology, having a strategy isn’t a one-time event; it’s an ongoing commitment to aligning our initiatives with organizational goals and the evolving needs of our customers. It’s the thread that weaves the past, present, and future of digital transformation into a coherent narrative.

As I reflect on my initial 60 days at Highlight Technologies and our path toward a “Digital Continuum,” I’m reminded of the ever-present need for strategic clarity in this fast-paced digital age. In a world where change is the only constant, a well-crafted technology strategy is our North Star, helping us navigate the uncharted territories of digital transformation. It’s not just a plan; it’s our commitment to staying relevant, adaptable, and, above all, true to our vision. So, I encourage you to embrace the concept of a “Digital Continuum” and remain open to change, for therein lies the promise of progress and innovation.

^[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/02/03/start/#:~:text=Mark%20Twain%20put%20it%20another,starting%20on%20the%20first%20one.%E2%80%9D
^[2] https://www.amazon.com/Hope-Not-Method-Business-Americas/dp/076790060X
^[3] https://chiefexecutive.net/real-meaning-digital-transformation-increased-agility/
^[4] https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/get-comfortable-being-uncomfortable-air-force-chief-tells-dayton-audience/ZI4G4RDJDVAWDEFZ3GKD7UONBM/

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are rapidly changing how we live and work, and Government Operations are no exception. Public sector organizations around the world are beginning to incorporate AI into their operations to improve services, reduce costs, and enhance the citizen experience.

AI-powered tools like virtual assistants, machine learning algorithms, and robotic process automation are helping governments modernize how they interact with citizens. By harnessing the power of AI, governments can provide citizens with an experience that matches the digital services they use in their everyday lives – personalized, efficient, and available on demand.

This blog will explore three major methods and benefits of using AI models to improve the citizen experience.

1. AI technologies are transforming how government and public sector organizations interact with and serve citizens. AI models like machine learning and natural language processing can help improve the citizen experience in many ways, including enabling new channels for citizens to access government services. Smart chatbots and voice assistants allow citizens to get information or complete simple transactions via phone, text, or voice instead of having to go to a government office.
2. AI can help personalize and customize the citizen experience. When citizens interact with government websites, AI models can track their interests, needs, and history to provide tailored content recommendations and prompt users to access the most relevant services. AI can also help route citizen inquiries to the most appropriate department and agent, helping to get people the answers and resources they need more quickly.
3. AI leads to faster, more efficient processing of many routine government transactions. AI tools can help automatically respond to certain types of citizen emails, classify and route forms and paperwork, and detect fraudulent claims or flag suspicious activity. By automating routine processes, government employees have more time to focus on complex issues and priority cases. Citizens also benefit from faster response times and less time to fill out paperwork.

In conclusion, there are many benefits to incorporating AI into government operations and the citizen experience. AI enables new channels for access to services, allows for personalization of the experience, and speeds up the processing of routine transactions. By better leveraging data and automation, governments can cut costs, improve accuracy and efficiency, and ultimately provide citizens with a modern experience that matches their digital lives. Overall, AI has significant potential to transform the citizen experience for the better through more customized, convenient, and efficient public services.